From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753933AbZH3RSe (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:18:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753901AbZH3RSd (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:18:33 -0400 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:42441 "EHLO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753897AbZH3RSd (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:18:33 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: b+2gMtzUgv4B5ROeP8S1k9lrYmZyAaQ10GMnY7+Iw3mW 1251652712 Message-ID: <4A9AB45B.6060500@imap.cc> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:18:19 +0200 From: Tilman Schmidt User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" CC: stable-review@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , Chris Wright Subject: Re: Would it help to encourage users to read/test stable-review patches References: <43e72e890908271122l6b08aaa5lc66de78301c7c88d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <43e72e890908271122l6b08aaa5lc66de78301c7c88d@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig88595DA8D52B081C970977DE" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig88595DA8D52B081C970977DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Luis R. Rodriguez schrieb: > We get development review eyes on stable patches during submission > into a subsystem, and perhaps 1-2 user tests then. Typically patches > are pretty easy to review for stable submission but I'm wondering > about cases where things are not so clear [...] > Do we want more user exposure to stable-review mailing list or is just > a few developer eyes enough? Having been bitten quite recently by a -stable mismerge, I am of two minds about this. On one hand, it would have been nice to catch that problem during stable review instead of when it hit an actual distribution. (Ubuntu, as it happened.) On the other hand, I'm not sure user exposure would have helped all that much in this case. Generally speaking, the way I understand stable rules, those cases where things are not so clear shouldn't make it into the review in the first place. The problem is with the cases where things appear to be quite clear but aren't. Those are the ones the review cycle must catch. Jm2c T. --=20 Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Unge=C3=B6ffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe R=C3=BCckseite) --------------enig88595DA8D52B081C970977DE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFKmrRlQ3+did9BuFsRArw9AJ4wSgAN4x5GDxU/0MDC9aHyTC1EOgCbBj6z W2m4MeICum3xkW3yhP2xix8= =aYL5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig88595DA8D52B081C970977DE--